Being in the coding field will oftentimes come with a request that may be unethical. In the reading by Bill Sourour, he was given a job to work on a quiz targeting teenage girls. This quiz asked girls a series of questions and was going to be able to recommend a type of drug based on their answers given. The website was acting as a general information site. The website that was being used was not an advertisement for any particular drug. When the requirements were sent, it bothered Sourour. He did not feel bothered at the time of creating the code, he saw it as a job and he did it. The code was designed to trick young girls, and that in itself is already unethical. The main purpose of this website was to push a particular drug. Unfortunately, there was a news report online stating that a young girl had killed herself about taking the drug that he had built the website for. The main side effects of this drug that was being pushed was severe depression and suicidal thoughts. Shortly after the dinner, Bill Sourour had resigned from his position. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the utilitarian tool shows us that the code was morally problematic because it targeted vulnerable young girls to take their drug for their own benefit and Sourour should have taken a different approach to his job in creating the quiz.

It is the responsibility of professionals to avoid causing harm to others. This can be very common in this line of work to where there may be consequences in the things that you could make. The work that can be created can ultimately affect people’s safety, health, privacy, and finances. Any expert in coding should not do jobs just to do them, and especially if they cause harm. Sourour had created a code designed for the company’s drug to be recommended regardless of their answers. Using the Code of Ethics shows a concept of avoiding harm to others and can be closely related to the actions of Sourour. It can be looked as if Sourour was just doing what he was tasked to do for his employer, but he was most certainly aware of what he was working on. It is not like the employer kept it out of his reach, he was given enough information to know that the quiz created could heavily influence their decisions. Using the utilitarianism tool gives another approach to whether Sourour writing the code was morally acceptable. This ethical tool shines light on the consequences of an action and decides rather if the action produced more overall good than harm. From looking at this situation from an utilitarianism perspective, Sourour completed his job and what he was paid to do. The company would be able to promote their medication to customers. Since this quiz was designed for them to recommend a specific drug, many users believed that it was appropriate for them when it was not. The consequences of taking the drug had severe side effects and ultimately makes this more significant than the benefits by the company and code developer. 

Action should have been taken from the beginning when he saw there was something unethically wrong about his task. Sourour should have had his own concerns with his employer and speak up on the untruthful information he was given. Although his employer was paying him a good amount of money for this project, it should have been refused if the company were not able to change the quiz and its purpose. Sourour should have left the project, as it caused more harm than morally good. In the reading it states that it is easy to make an argument that he had no part in it all, but there is a greater argument that he did have a part in it. He contributed to creating the quiz and misled those about a health decision. Using the Code of Ethics supports that there should have been a refusal and also the professional should always consider the effects of their work and what it can do to others. Although Sourour meant zero harm for others, he knew what was being pushed and he served a big enough part to be in the wrong for what had happened. A suicide of a young girl flipped the switch for him to resign and work for more ethical opportunities.

In the reading by Armstrong, it is said that monopoly and special knowledge lead to power; and power in the hands of a few can result in harm to the many. Professionals have a bigger responsibility to consider the public interest and the other potential consequences that could come from their work. The relationship between professions and the larger society have a social contract in which these professionals have a service ideal. This is a responsibility to act in the public’s interest. This heavily relates to the case from Sourour on how he had the responsibility as a professional programmer to not complete the task that was assigned to him by his employer. Sourour should have considered how this pharmaceutical quiz could have created an ethical problem. Without needing to be a medical professional, it was obvious that this drug advertised could cause potential harm. Especially since the pharmaceutical quiz was designed to only recommend the company’s drug regardless of the answers that were submitted. Sourour was part of a system that could influence people’s decisions about their health without providing an approved, unbiased assessment. Armstrong goes into detail on the ethical importance of preventing harm. When the responsibilities of your profession conflict, the interests between the client or employer can be placed against the interests of the individuals who could be potentially harmed in the process. Sourour had a job from his employer to complete the assignment. The obligation to his employer conflicted with his own responsibility to avoid contributing to something that could be harmful to others. Magnitude and probability of potential harm to others should always be considered when trying to figure out which responsibility should take priority. In this situation, the consequences dealt with people’s health and their lives. The potential harm from this situation outweighs the financial benefits from taking on this project.

Using the utilitarianism tool shows us to evaluate all the potential consequences from Sourour’s actions. Sourour was able to fulfill his responsibilities and finish the job that he was paid for. The company benefited financially from the project and they were also able to promote their own medication. Although the benefits seem positive, the negative effects completely outweigh them.From this perspective of this ethics tool, Sourour should have been without this company as the effects were significantly negative. Armstrong brings up the term “whistleblowing” and how it can be internal, in the sense that one “goes over the head” of an immediate manager. Sourour was in a position to speak up on what he thought was morally wrong. Sourour had opportunities to speak up and potentially have the quiz changed. Whistleblowing would have been very relevant in this situation as it was for an important issue going on in the company. Professionals have their own duties and responsibilities to prevent serious harm to others. Sourour could have approached this differently and not have continued just because it was his job and his obligation to complete it. The quiz that was given should have been questioned, attempted to change, or been refused to be worked on. These approaches would have fulfilled the responsibility to the public to create the greatest overall good.

Sourour’s experience with the company that he had worked for shows that sometimes you will be faced with decisions that could entirely benefit you or negatively affect others. It shows that even a simple task could be a huge part of something worse. Sourour participated in creating a pharmaceutical quiz that purposely misled users and exposed them to serious harm. The ethical tool utilitarianism supports the idea that the possible harm to users outweighed the financial and professional benefits of Sourour completing this project. Many steps should have been taken to prevent this from happening and as a result, a young girl taking her own life. In the end, Sourour resigned from his position because of the serious effects the medication can have on the young girls who may have taken it.  It is the responsibility of professionals to consider the consequences of their own work. It is important to carefully consider the consequences of using technology for things like this and how it can influence decisions that could affect someone’s health and well-being.